Tag Archives: community empowerment

Places can be defined in a lot of different ways: the geographic location, the physical buildings, the people who live there and the relationships that are formed. Central to places should be the people who live and interact there. Putting people, and communities at the heart of placemaking can benefit the physical infrastructure of a place, by identifying what is needed. And allowing residents a say in their local area can also give communities a sense of empowerment and ownership of their place, somewhere they can be proud to call home and somewhere they feel safe, included and valued.

Can places empower people?

In short… YES! Positive places have the power to lift the community up, give them a sense of empowerment, worth and inspiration. But places also have the power to alienate and dis-empower.

Places which are run down, with no or low levels of community engagement can contribute to communities becoming disparate, isolated and can reinforce negative stereotypes, particularly those which relate to poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. Making places that are thriving hubs for communities to be built upon can have a significant impact on the experiences and quality of life for communities living within them. Work being done by organisations like SURF show how important effective regeneration projects can be in revitalising places and the people who live there.

A recent RTPI blog post emphasised the importance of place on helping to reduce the impact of poverty and break some of the more significant socioeconomic barriers marginalised groups within communities can face. It emphasises the importance of place-based urban policy and how core policy features like the planning of a space or the design of a building can actually have a significant impact on the people who interact with that space.

A national standard for community empowerment

As important as the physical space are the people who live and work within it.

In the policy context of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, What Works Scotland, along with others drafted a set of ‘fit for purpose’ national standards for community empowerment, to build on those published in 2005. It was hoped that the new standards would provide clarity and focus on ways to help strengthen and improve participation and engagement at a local level. There are seven standards: Inclusion; Support; Planning; Working Together; Methods; Communication; and Impact.

Identifying and making the most of community assets

Asset based development was originally created as a description of how local residents grow collective efficacy and what they use to do so. It involves paying attention to what is in a local place – not what we think should be there, or what is not there. These ‘assets’ are found within a community and can be physical, such as infrastructure, but can also be the skills and knowledge of local people.

The key concept centres on the fact that everyone has something positive that they can contribute to a community. It follows that, if everyone does or is given the opportunity to contribute positively to their community, then there will be less requirement for spending on services from local government. It can also mean greater accountability at a community level for making changes that actually impact positively and directly on the lives and experiences of people who live and work there. Taking time to identify these assets and feeding this into how places are created can be a key part of ensuring communities feel empowered and valued.

Community anchors are an important tool

Community anchors have been identified as vital in many instances to ensure the continued development and capacity building of communities within a place. Their roles can extend across the community from building capacity and resilience, to supporting local democracy and helping to drive social change within a community. Community anchors play an important role in empowering communities and getting them involved in the design and delivery of services in their area.

A report published by What Works Scotland in 2018 examines the developing roles of community anchors within communities. The report explores the developing discussions between the community sector, public services and policymakers and considers how they might work more closely together to deliver bespoke and localised community driven policies.

Summing up

Empowering communities to feel valued and engaged is a key part of developing places that are inclusive and enjoyable places for people to live. Promoting communities as key agents of change within the areas in which they live not only improves the community, but can also help on an individual level, fostering a sense of pride and value. Creating better places is a key strand to regeneration and planning policy. Putting communities at the heart of creating places will ensure that places not only meet the needs of local people but are inherently connected to them.

On 14th September, Holyrood held a smart cities event at Strathclyde University’s Technology and Innovation Centre (TIC). It was chaired by Willy Roe CBE, an expert in public service reform, and brought delegates together from local and central government, academia, and the private sector.

The smart cities agenda is becoming increasingly important as cities face significant challenges, including climate change, traffic congestion, and ageing populations. However, as Dr Lorraine Hudson, Research Fellow at the Open University, highlighted, only 18% of people have heard of smart cities. This issue of ‘engagement’ became a key theme for the event, with delegates wondering how we engage citizens in smart cities.

Future City Glasgow

Gary Walker, former Programme Director for Future City Glasgow, spoke about the council’s success in exploring ‘innovative ways to use technology and data to make life in the city safer, smarter and more sustainable’.

With £24 million in Innovate UK funding, a number of demonstrator projects were introduced, including:

creating a new state-of-the-art Operations Centre, with integrated, traffic and public safety management system, bringing together public space CCTV, security for the city council’s museums and art galleries, traffic management and police intelligence

introducing intelligent street lighting in areas, such as the Riverside Walkway, which switch on when people walk by, and Gordon Street, where lighting provides real time data on noise levels, footfall, and air pollution

The council has also incorporated a number of community engagement initiatives. These include:

Engagement hubs – the hubs provide information to citizens about smart cities, and were spread out across Glasgow, including the main hub on Buchanan Street and in communities such as Easterhouse and Pollock.

The Glasgow Cycling App – the easy to use platform was designed to encourage cyclists to share their experiences of cycling, generating data that could help others plan journeys or highlight areas to target for improvement

‘Gamified’ engagement tool – this tool was developed in collaboration with the University of Glasgow and a local company, and aims to encourage people to modify their energy behaviours

Time to involve the people?

Dr Lorraine Hudson presented research from the Institution of Engineering and Technology. It highlighted that:

people’s views are the most important considerations when taking cities forward

introducing new city-wide technologies has been done without consulting citizens

the public has yet to buy into the idea of smart cities and are not convinced by the value and benefits on their lives

She also posed the question of whether citizens should be thought of as passive ‘consumers’ or ‘co-creators’ of smart cities.

In addition, Dr Hudson provided some statistics on the free Smart Cities course run by the Open University. They showed that over 23,000 people had joined since 2014, with 45% ‘knowing little or nothing’ about smart cities prior to the course. There was also interest from over 100 countries, including Brazil, India and Ukraine.

Interestingly, she suggested that participants’ comments could be mined to understand citizens’ views on topics such as open data, privacy and leadership.

Mazi Project

Dr Michael Smyth provided an insight into the MAZI project, a collaborative EU initiative which sets out to empower people to use technology to shape their local public spaces.

The innovative aspect of the project involves the use of ‘Do-It-Yourself networking’ – a combination of wireless technology, low-cost hardware, and free/libre/open source software (FLOSS) applications. By making these technologies understood and easy to customise, configure and deploy, MAZI hopes to empower citizens to build their own local networks to facilitate physical, hybrid and virtual interactions within communities.

Panel Discussion

Ben Miller, Policy and Communications Officer from Smart Energy GB, commented on the UK’s rollout of smart meters. He explained that although many meters had been replaced, some members of the public were still reluctant to have the new smart meters installed. It was suggested that they represented the ‘spy in the house’, with some people concerned over the data being recorded and sent to electricity suppliers.

Ritchie Somerville, Innovation and Futures Manager at Edinburgh City Council, reflected on the impact of their budget challenge planner, an engagement tool which enabled citizens to have their say on how public money should be spent. The council used the feedback gathered to help make decisions when finalising the budget. The tool received over 3000 ‘engagements’ and was deemed to be a success by the council.

Mr Somerville also highlighted the importance of explaining the benefits of smart cities. He explained that most citizens are happy to sign up to social media and store club cards because of the services and rewards they receive. In his view, providing the opportunity to opt into services and showing the clear benefits should ease concerns over privacy.

Dr Hudson provided some further thoughts on the need for engagement. She noted that smart city project ‘Bristol is Open’ used an open blog to encourage debate. Additionally, she warned that failing to consult citizens could lead to a lack of trust. Another delegate highlighted Edinburgh Airport, who implemented a £1 drop-off charge without consultation, and are struggling to engage local residents over plans to change flight routes.

Scott Moore, Business Analyst at the Improvement Service, described his experience learning from Seoul’s (South Korea) main digital transformation body. In response to a question on cultural differences, he explained that the use of digital technology is more widespread in Seoul, amongst all age groups. He suggested that encouraging an increased take-up of digital technology would be a key challenge for Scotland. The Carnegie Trust and the Wheatley Group are two organisations who have been doing excellent work in tackling digital exclusion.

Final thoughts

The event provided a great opportunity to reflect on the future of cities. Although public budgets are reducing, it was felt that investing in a smarter approach to cities was a worthwhile endeavour. With the introduction of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act, many felt that this was an ideal time for local authorities to engage with citizens, and ensure smart cities are not just focused on technology, but are truly citizen-led.

Follow us on Twitterto see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team. If you found this article interesting, you may also like to read our other smart cities articles.

The Netherlands covers an area of 41,543 km², and has a population of 17 million people. That works out at 488 people per square kilometre, making Holland the most densely populated country in the European Union. By comparison, the UK has a population density of 413 people per sq km, while the figure for Scotland is just 68 people per sq km

Statistics like that matter when it comes to waste management. Lack of space in the Netherlands has prompted successive governments to divert waste from landfill, and encourage more recycling. The waste management movement was strongly influenced by Ad Lansink, a chemistry lecturer turned politician, who developed “Lansink’s Ladder”. This tool has six “rungs”, with disposal on the bottom, then recovery, recycling, reuse and on the top rung prevention.

The Dutch approach has reaped impressive benefits, with high rates of recycling and most of the remainder being incinerated to generate electricity and heat.

However, there is a growing sense that recycling in the Netherlands may be close to its limit. In 2015, Green Growth in the Netherlands reported that since 2000, the percentage of recycled waste has remained more or less constant.

“Recycled material reached 81% in 2012, a high share that has been fairly constant over the years. This may indicate that the recycling percentages are close to their achievable maximum.”

The Dutch are now looking for further ways to create more value from recycled waste.

ReGen Villages

One such idea is the development of “regenerative villages” (ReGen). These self-reliant communities will produce their own food, generate their own energy and recycle their own waste.

The ReGen model is the brainchild of California-based ReGen Villages, which is partnering with EFFEKT, a Danish architecture practice, to launch a pilot version in the Netherlands this year.

Each ReGen community will contain a variety of homes, greenhouses and public buildings, with built-in sustainable features, such as solar power, communal fruit and vegetable gardens and shared water and waste management systems. The five principles underpinning the concept are:

energy positive homes,

door-step high-yield organic food production,

mixed renewable energy and storage,

water and waste recycling,

empowerment of local communities

The first 25 pilot prefabricated homes will be located at Almere in the west of Holland. Almere has experienced exponential growth, rising from farmland in the 1970s to become the seventh largest city in the Netherlands.

Waste management is a key element in the ReGen villages, which will have ‘closed-loop’ waste-to-resource systems that turn waste into energy.

There are plans to roll out the model in other communities, in Europe, North America and the Middle East. Off-grid communities are not a new idea. But the necessary technology, falling costs and consumer demand have reached a point where the ReGen approach may become truly sustainable. The idea offers the promise of meeting the challenges of rising populations making unprecedented demands on limited resources.

Interviewed in The Guardian, Frank Suurenbroek, professor of urban transformation at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, acknowledged the need for such projects, but also highlighted potential problems:

“A possible field of tension is how the technological demands of sustainability and circularity [interact with] spatial configurations needed to create attractive places and the desire to create new houses fast. Both worlds have to learn how to connect. Experiments with new sustainable quarters are interesting and needed, but a major issue is how to do this within existing built areas.”

All eyes on Almere

Once the first 25 homes are built, a further 75 will complete the village. It will take a lot of time, money, skill and muscle to make the project a success . We’ll be watching with interest to see if the vision can be turned into reality.

Our thanks to EFFEKT in Copenhagen for their permission to reproduce the images in this blog post.

If you’ve found this blog post interesting, you may also like our previous posts on recycling and the circular economy:

In April, a study by Central Scotland Green Network (CSGN) reported a significant increase in community growing between 2010 and 2015. The results of the study found a rise of 79% in the number of sites devoted to community gardens, taking the total to 84, with land coverage rising to 29 hectares.

The increasing popularity of community gardens is also reflected elsewhere in the UK. The Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (FCFCG) estimates that there are now around 1000 community gardens around the UK.

“locally managed pieces of land that are developed in response to and reflect the needs of the communities in which they are based.”

They differ from allotments in that the focus is on communal, rather than individual growing space. Most community gardens concentrate on cultivation of fruit and vegetables, although they may also promote complementary elements, such as recreation, biodiversity and education.

Last year, our Idox Information Service briefing on community growing highlighted a number of these projects, including the Incredible Edible community growing project in West Yorkshire and G3 Growers in Glasgow. Further examples include the Culpeper Community Garden in Islington, north London, and the Grove Community Garden in Edinburgh. Meanwhile, in Streatham, south London, a patch of waste ground next to a health centre has been transformed into a community garden by a group of patients with long-term health conditions. The garden is now supplying enough produce to sell fruit and vegetables to patients and visitors at a nearby hospital.

Benefits of Community Gardens

A 2009 report from the FCFCG identified a range of social, economic and environmental benefits stemming from community gardens. These included:

More recently, a 2015 report on community gardens in Glasgow indicated that participants enjoy physical and mental health benefits, make new friends and develop community empowerment.

In addition, community growth projects have a role to play in the local economy, providing stepping stones to employment and generating income through the sale of fruit and vegetables.

Community gardens: the policy challenges

As the benefits of community gardens have become more apparent, public policymakers have come to view community growing as a vehicle for delivering policy goals in sectors as diverse as health and the environment, business and planning.

In Scotland, a number of community gardens are being supported by funding from the Scottish Government’s Climate Challenge Fund, administered by Keep Scotland Beautiful. Other public funders of community gardens include the Big Lottery Fund and Scottish local authorities.

Earlier this year, research findings highlighted increasing support for community gardens from policymakers in Scotland at national and local levels, and the widening range of funding policy initiatives:

“There is no doubt that national and local government policy agendas are changing in response to the mounting evidence linking urban greenspace with a range of positive health, social, economic and environmental benefits and that increased support will be available for community gardens in Scotland in the future.”

However, the authors also identified a number of challenges facing community growing projects, including planning and legal issues, land availability, funding issues, winning the support of local communities and addressing skills shortages.

Tackling these issues, the authors argued, will need support at local and national levels, but they went on to highlight problems encountered by community gardens in Scotland when applying for grant funding:

“…because the policies relevant to community gardens span such a wide range of concerns across a variety of sectors (including health, land use, social regeneration and the environment) and because funding tends to be located within individual sectors, they often feel pressured to fit in with social policy agendas and associated grant funding criteria which are not entirely suited to their original aims or the needs of their users in order to be eligible for grant money.”

As an example of this, one of the research participants recalled a local health group meeting where the direction of their community garden was pushed from a “therapeutic mental health benefit” agenda to a “back to work” agenda in order to fit in with a recent policy change.

Looking ahead

It’s likely that prevailing policy will continue to affect the way community growing projects organise and develop. In 2015, the Scottish Parliament approved the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act, which includes provisions giving communities the right to take over land in urban and rural areas, enabling, for example, the transformation of waste ground into community garden. And in its 2016 manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish National Party pledged to work through the Community Empowerment Act to increase access to land for food growing purposes to develop allotments and community gardens.

If community gardens are to grow further, it appears that organisers will have to explore inventive ways of navigating a complex funding landscape, while satisfying the objectives of policymakers at national and local levels.

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may be interested in some of our other posts on community development:

What does quality of life and ‘a good place to live’ mean? What are the key challenges to ensure quality of life in cities today? How can we create better places to live and who needs to be involved? These were just some of the questions explored at a seminar hosted by Policy Scotland, Glasgow University’s research and knowledge exchange hub, last month.

Running the event was Dr Georgiana Varna, Research Fellow at Glasgow University. Georgiana is a multidisciplinary scholar, specialising in urban regeneration and public space development.

Cities back on the agenda

A particular emphasis was placed on the importance of both place and people. Georgiana noted that cities are very much back on the policy agenda as we try to fix the mistakes of the 60s and 70s. She alluded to the New Urban Agenda, which embodies three guiding principles:

Leave no one behind

Achieve sustainable and inclusive urban prosperity

Foster ecological and resilient cities and human settlements

Following Georgiana’s introduction, several short presentations were given by a range of professionals and scholars.

Speaker: Michael Gray, Housing and Regeneration Services, Glasgow City Council

Michael Gray of Glasgow City Council delivered the first of the presentations, focusing on the Commonwealth Games Athlete’s Village in the East End of Glasgow. There was a clear pride in what they achieved with a belief that the result is a sustainable, cohesive community.

Michael did allude to some concerns that have been highlighted by GoWell East surveys regarding speeding vehicles, lack of buses and lack of local retail. But he also noted that lessons have been learned from the project, which was very complex in terms of procurement, design and construction, and that future development is addressing such concerns.

Speaker: Keith Kintrea, Glasgow University

Keith referred to Scotland’s standings in the PISA survey, showing that maths, reading and science achievement in Scotland sits in the middle and ahead of England, despite their efforts to improve. However, he noted that there is no room for complacency as those children in the most deprived areas were less likely to do well – nearly 70% of Glasgow pupils live in the most deprived areas.

Again, the importance of neighbourhood/place was emphasised, this time for local educational outcomes. It was noted that while Scottish schools are less segregated than the rest of the UK and more inclusive according to the OECD, (similar to countries such as Finland), this is not necessarily the case in cities. Keith concluded that we need to do much more about what places do in terms of educational outcomes.

Speaker: George Eckton, COSLA/SUSTRANS

George highlighted the importance of transport for delivering social, economic and environmental initiatives, and for growth in city-regions. Inequality in social mobility was put down to inadequate transport and it was noted that many people are disadvantaged in the labour market due to lack of mobility.

He stressed the need to increase the use of sustainable transport and argued that a collaborative approach will be essential to create inclusive growth for all.

Speaker: Andy Milne, Scotland’s Regeneration Network

Andy focused on community regeneration, arguing that the issue of centralisation and decentralisation is crucial. He stated that as a result of centralisation, urban areas – where most of the population live – are vastly under resourced.

Interestingly, he also noted that regeneration doesn’t work when not all areas are addressed. He argued that successful growth and inclusion will depend on economic policy decisions and not on all the small actions taken to address inequality.

Speaker: Richard Bellingham, University of Strathclyde

Richard’s focus was on smart cities. He noted that cities rely on critical systems – food production, waste/water handling, transportation, energy systems, health systems, social systems – and that if any one of them fails, the whole city fails.

The issue of rapid growth was emphasised as something cities need to respond to in a smart way. The recent 50-lane traffic jam experienced by Beijing suggests that there was a lack of smart thinking in its approach of building more roads for more people.

Richard suggested that greater collaboration is required for smart cities to succeed.

Speaker: David Allan, Scottish Community Development Centre & Community Health Exchange

The final presentation focused on community development. David highlighted the importance of community development approaches to build healthy and sustainable communities and referred to four building blocks of community empowerment:

Key elements of these initiatives were identified as: community-led, responsive to community need, fair and inclusive, and flexible and adaptive. Challenges were also identified: the level of understanding of ‘community’, community ‘stuff’ is often seen as nice but not essential and there is a lack of capacity and supply at the local level. David also noted that there is a danger that city-regions may exacerbate existing inequalities by concentrating resources in powerhouses.

He concluded by noting that future cities are unlikely to look like something from Back to the Future. Rather, they will probably look very much like today but the underlying systems need to change.

This is just the approach of the Community Health Champion model, developed by Altogether Better, which has demonstrated not only the positive impact on health but the social value of such an approach.

What are health champions?

Health Champions are volunteers from all walks of life who are provided with accredited training and support so they can undertake health promotion activities within their communities to reduce health inequalities and improve the health of the local population.

The Community Health Champion role began as a five year Big Lottery Funded programme (Wellbeing 1) in 2008. Over 18,000 Health Champions were recruited, trained and supported between 2008 and 2012, reaching over 105,000 people.

Through a combination of their training and own personal experiences, these volunteers empower and encourage people within their families, communities and workplaces to take up healthy activities, create groups to meet local needs and can signpost people to relevant support and services.

Challenges

While Wellbeing 1 succeeded in reaching many people in need, the programme also raised two specific challenges: in almost all cases, the work being done was invisible to the NHS; and securing ongoing funding to continue the support was difficult.

Peer support was later identified as the most appropriate way of trying to connect communities with health services.

Following this recognition and the success of the original model, further lottery funding was awarded to develop the Champion model and use it to engage champions, communities and health services (Wellbeing 2).

Co-production of health and wellbeing outcomes

The model was applied to health services specifically with the aim of addressing the apparent disconnect between the NHS and community-based services. It helps connect both patients with support in their communities and professional practices with those communities.

Many citizens have volunteered in different ways and in different settings. These include:

Practice Health Champions working closely with their General Practice to create new ways for patients to access non-clinical support

Youth Health Champions where children and young people are recruited, trained and supported to help young people more actively engage with and influence their own and their community’s health

Pregnancy and early years Health Champions who are interested in giving children a better start

Health Champions working within a specialist, hospital-based NHS service

Senior Health Champions who engage with older people, offering a complimentary approach to more formal programmes

Community-based health improvement initiatives such as this could help to strengthen community-professional partnerships and cross-collaboration among health, social and other services. And this in turn could lead to a reduction in health inequalities.

86% of champions and 94% of participants in the programme reported increased levels of confidence and well-being;

87% of champions and 94% of participants in the programme acquired significant new knowledge related to health and well-being;

98% of champions and 99% of participants in the programme reported increased involvement in social activities and social groups;

95% of practice staff involved with the programme would recommend it and wish to continue.

Other benefits included reduced social isolation, increased levels of exercise/healthy eating and feeling physically better. One champion reported “this has helped me more than any medication might.”

Success stories include the work of a cycle champion who has improved her own health and wellbeing, encouraged over 70 other people to improve theirs through taking up cycling, provided cycle training to over 50 people in 6 community groups and provided specific detailed help to 5 people.

Other successes have involved volunteers setting up football training, providing support to women with mental health issues, providing advice and support to ethnic minorities and providing advice on healthy eating.

In terms of monetary value, an analysis of the social return on investment (SROI) of a series of Altogether Better project beneficiaries found a positive SROI of between £0.79 and £112.42 for every pound invested, highlighting the potential value of these initiatives to funders.

Final thoughts

At a time of increasing demands on health services and with the relentless squeeze on public sector resources, perhaps the move towards greater community empowerment and collaboration across sectors is the right one. After all, as I’m sure we’d all agree, prevention is better than cure.

If you liked this blog post, you might also want to read Heather’s earlier post on social prescribing

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

It is widely acknowledged that wider social, economic and environmental factors have a significant influence on health and wellbeing. According to recent research only 20% of health outcomes are attributable to clinical care and the quality of care while socioeconomic factors account for 40%.

With increasing pressures on GPs and lengthy waiting times a real issue for many, particularly those with mental health conditions, social prescribing could represent a real way forward.

In response to a recent Ask-a-Researcher request for information on different approaches in social prescribing and evidence of what works in the UK, it was interesting to find that despite the recognition of potential value, there has been little evaluation of social prescribing schemes to date.

Much of the material found focused on specific interventions and small-scale pilots and discussion around implementation. A new review of community referral schemes published by University College London (UCL) is therefore a welcome addition to the evidence base as it provides definitions, models and notable examples of social prescribing schemes and assesses the means by which and the extent to which these schemes have been evaluated.

So what is social prescribing?

Social prescribing means linking patients with non-medical treatment, whether it is social or physical, within their community.

A number of schemes already exist and have included a variety of prescribed activities such as arts and creative activities, physical activity, learning and volunteering opportunities, self-care and support with finance, benefits, housing and employment.

Often these schemes are delivered by voluntary, community and faith sector organisations with detailed knowledge of local communities and how best to meet the needs of certain groups.

Social and economic benefits

Despite a lack of robust evidence, our investigation uncovered a number of documents looking at the social prescribing model and the outcomes it can lead to. Positive outcomes repeatedly highlighted include:

improved health and wellbeing;

reduced demand on hospital resources;

cost savings; and

reduced social isolation.

According to the UCL report, the benefits have been particularly pronounced for marginalised groups such as mental health service-users and older adults at risk of social isolation.

A recent evaluation of the social and economic impact of the Rotherham Social Prescribing Pilot found that after 3-4 months, 83% of patients had experienced positive change in at least one outcome area. These outcomes included improved mental and physical health, feeling less lonely and socially isolated, becoming more independent, and accessing a wider range of welfare benefit entitlements.

The evaluation also reported that there were reductions in patients’ use of hospital services, including reductions of up to a fifth in the number of outpatient stays, accident and emergency attendances and outpatient appointments. The return on investment for the NHS was 50 pence for each pound invested.

Similarly, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has recently argued that empowering patients improves their health outcomes and could save money by supporting them to manage their condition themselves.

IPPR suggests that if empowering care models such as social prescribing were adopted much more widely throughout the NHS we would have a system that focused on the social determinants of health not just the symptoms, providing people with personalised and integrated care, that focused on capabilities not just needs, and that strengthened people’s relationships with one another.

Partnership working

With a continued policy focus on integrated services and increased personalisation, social prescribing would seem to make sense. In addition to providing a means to alternative support, it could also be instrumental in strengthening community-professional partnerships and cross-collaboration among health, social and other services.

The New Local Government Network (NLGN) recently examined good practice in collaboration between local authorities, housing associations and the health sector, with Doncaster Social Prescribing highlighted as an example of successful partnership working. Of the 200 referrals made through this project, only 3 were known to local authority and health and wellbeing officers, showing that the work of social prescribing identified individuals who had otherwise slipped through the net.

And with the prospect of an ageing population and the health challenges this brings, a growing number of people could benefit from community-based support.

As Chair of Arts Council England, Sir Peter Bazalgette, notes “social prescribing is an idea whose time has come”.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team.

Further reading: if you liked this blog post, you might also want to read Heather’s earlier post on the health and wellbeing benefits of investing in public art.

Austerity measures implemented by the UK Government since 2010 have reduced funding for some public services and aspects of welfare. Although local government has attempted to absorb real-term reductions in funding, for example by sharing corporate functions, the scale of the cuts is reducing direct delivery in some service areas. Discretionary community-level support services have been disproportionately affected by austerity measures. Continue reading →